search_kik_v2_decisions

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and idempotentHint=true, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds context about the specific domain (Turkish public procurement) and decision types supported, which is useful behavioral information beyond the annotations. However, it doesn't mention rate limits, authentication requirements, or other operational constraints that might be relevant.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is extremely concise - just one sentence that efficiently communicates the tool's purpose and scope. Every word earns its place with no wasted text. It's appropriately sized for a search tool with good schema documentation.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given that the tool has comprehensive annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint), 100% schema description coverage, and an output schema exists, the description provides adequate context. It clearly states the domain and decision types, which complements the structured data well. The main gap is lack of explicit differentiation from sibling tools, but otherwise it's reasonably complete for this complexity level.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

With 100% schema description coverage, all 7 parameters are well-documented in the input schema itself. The description doesn't add any additional parameter semantics beyond what's already in the schema descriptions. According to the scoring rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline score is 3 even without parameter information in the description.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool searches for 'Turkish public procurement disputes (KİK)' and specifies the three decision types it supports. This provides a specific verb ('search') and resource ('Turkish public procurement disputes'), though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling search tools like 'search_uyusmazlik_decisions' or 'search_bddk_decisions' which might cover similar domains.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description begins with 'Use this when searching Turkish public procurement disputes (KİK)', which provides basic context for when to use the tool. However, it doesn't offer explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over sibling alternatives like 'search_uyusmazlik_decisions' or 'search_bddk_decisions', nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. The guidance is implied rather than comprehensive.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.